Nah. My understand of the law is that you can be found guilty on counts 1, 2, and/or 3, or nor guilty on 1,2 and/or 3. That is why they (prosecutors) don't just go for one count alone. That way it is not a one or nothing deal.
The verdict will be read in open court between 3:30 p.m. and 4 p.m. local time. Jury reaches a verdict in the Derek Chauvin trial (msn.com)
I still say the jury will be hung on the first two and find him guilty of the 3rd lesser charge. the adddition of intent makes the burden of proof so much higher.
The really messed up thing is if they find him guilty on that 3rd charge, the penalty is 10 years in prison and/OR a $20,000 fine. Imagine if the judge imposes just a 20K fine for manslaughter? That would be a pip.
So the judge has a choice of 10 years or 20K? How strange is that. There is a big difference between doing 20 years and paying 20K.
Did they ask for a change of venue in this case? He is a bad actor and needs to be prosecuted somewhere but how the hell he can get a fair trial in a city where if you are juror and vote to acquit you are a dead man walking is beyond me. I presume that they made the request just to have it on the record for appeal.
I am not sure that is right... I have not pulled up the statute but it says for manslaughter the judge can sentence him to 4.5 years for first time offender. I don't think you walk out with just a fine for this type of crime. EDIT: Ok that is what the statute says but no way the judge offers only a fine if jury finds him guilty.
Someone tell Tony this thread title was the main article on every news station in the whole USA as soon as it came out. It's not like I made it up or anything. Thank you.